I'm here via wikipedia after posting some comments at the issue of github.
I haven't got any response from facebook so far, because the issue is closed(?).
So, I would like to repeat here.
The FAQ doesn't answer my question copied below.
What is the additional permission granted under PATENTS?
My understanding is that solo BSD License itself already grants essential claims of React, because BSD License is a royalty free OSS License approved by OSI who requires OSS licenses to be permissive without any additional license.
Consequently, I think no permission is granted under PATENTS additional to BSD License.
On the other hand, the FAQ says that PATENTS won't revoke copyright license of BSD.
Does it mean that PATENTS might possibly revoke patent license granted under BSD License?
Even if so, I think that it is no longer BSD License and it is not appropriate to use the term of "BSD".
And, why the target of prohibited lawsuit under PATENTS is so broad?
PATENTS grants no patent as I mentioned or only essential claims of React at most, in contrast, it intends to protect not only the software React but the company Facebook and more from any patent lawsuits by licensees.
Don't you think that it is one-sided nor unfair?
Of course, I understand what you want to do and I think it might be a legitimate option, BUT it makes React difficult to be used by big commercial companies with hundreds of products/ services, with tens of thousand of staffs and with tens of affiliates.
I mean that, for such companies, it is almost impossible to reach consensus on licensing all their patents including ones they will obtain in the future as long as they use React freely to Facebook, all users of React and more, and it just result in avoidance of use of React.
For comparison, a similar license system of AOMedia grants only necessary claims of the codecs, and prohibits only patent lawsuits against the codecs but not against other things of the AOMedia members.
In this case, permitted rights and placed obligations are balanced, I think.
It may be said that AOMedia even as a anti-MPEG-patent party doesn't offer such an aggressive anti-patent license as PATENTS of React.
The same goes for Apache License 2 of the former license of React.
By the way, licensees are licensees but not patent trolls, and patent trolls are patent trolls who don't practice any real businesses possibly using React other than patent business.
So, only if a licensee is a potential competitor at the same time, the issue would surface.
Again, do you really put more weight on avoidance of patent lawsuits by licensees than on popularity of React?
I don't hope so, but it's your choice, after all.
I would like to hear from your IAAL person.